The SynergyS project aims to develop and assess a smart control system for multi-commodity energy systems (SMCES). The consortium, including a broad range of partners from different sectors, believes a SMCES is better able to incorporate new energy sources in the energy system. The partners are Hanze, TU Delft, University of Groningen, TNO, D4, Groningen Seaports, Emerson, Gain Automation Technology, Energy21, and Enshore. The project is supported by a Energy Innovation NL (topsector energie) subsidy by the Ministry of Economic Affairs.Groningen Seaports (Eemshaven, Chemical Park Delfzijl) and Leeuwarden are used as case studies for respectively an industrial and residential cluster. Using a market-based approach new local energy markets have been developed complementing the existing national wholesale markets. Agents exchange energy using optimized bidding strategies, resulting in better utilization of the assets in their portfolio. Using a combination of digital twins and physical assets from two field labs (ENTRANCE, The Green Village) performance of the SMCES is assessed. In this talk the smart multi-commodity energy system is presented, as well as some first results of the assessment. Finally an outlook is given how the market-based approach can benefit the development of energy hubs.
LINK
Be energy future proof: - So, be energy future proof, you do now no how. - Include legislation in this but do not rely on legislation as a guide line. - Base your future-proof energy system on the trends and prepare for that. - But be aware: this ain’t easy.
DOCUMENT
The energy management systems industry in the built environment is currently an important topic. Buildings use about 40% of the total global energy worldwide. Therefore, the energy management system’s sector is one of the most influential sectors to realize changes and transformation of energy use. New data science technologies used in building energy management systems might not only bring many technical challenges, but also they raise significant educational challenges for professionals who work in the field of energy management systems. Learning and educational issues are mainly due to the transformation of professional practices and networks, emerging technologies, and a big shift in how people work, communicate, and share their knowledge across the professional and academic sectors. In this study, we have investigated three different companies active in the building services sector to identify the main motivation and barriers to knowledge adoption, transfer, and exchange between different professionals in the energy management sector and explore the technologies that have been used in this field using the boundary-crossing framework. The results of our study show the importance of understanding professional learning networks in the building services sector. Additionally, the role of learning culture, incentive structure, and technologies behind the educational system of each organization are explained. Boundary-crossing helps to analyze the barriers and challenges in the educational setting and how new educational technologies can be embedded. Based on our results, future studies with a bigger sample and deeper analysis of technologies are needed to have a better understanding of current educational problems.
DOCUMENT
Summary Project objectives This study fits into a larger research project on logistics collaboration and outsourcing decisions. The final objective of this larger project is to analyze the logistics collaboration decision in more detail to identify thresholds in these decisions. To reach the overall objectives, the first step is to get a clearer picture on the chemical and logistics service providers industry, sectors of our study, and on logistics collaboration in these sectors. The results of this first phase are presented in this report. Project Approach The study consists of two parts: literature review and five case studies within the chemical industry. The literature covers three topics: logistics collaboration, logistics outsourcing and purchasing of logistics services. The five case studies are used to refine the theoretical findings of the literature review. Conclusions Main observations during the case studies can be summarized as follows: Most analyzed collaborative relationships between shippers and logistics service providers in the chemical industry are still focused on operational execution of logistics activities with a short term horizon. Supply management design and control are often retained by the shippers. Despite the time and cost intensive character of a logistics service buying process, shippers tendering on a very regular basis. The decision to start a new tender project should more often be based on an integral approach that includes all tender related costs. A lower frequency of tendering could create more stability in supply chains. Beside, it will give both, shippers and LSPs, the possibility to improve the quality of the remaining projects. Price is still a dominating decision criterion in selecting a LSP. This is not an issue as long as the comparison of costs is based on an integral approach, and when shippers balance the cost criterion within their total set of criteria for sourcing logistics services. At the shippers' side there is an increased awareness of the need of more solid collaboration with logistics service providers. Nevertheless, in many cases this increased awareness does not actually result in the required actions to establish more intensive collaboration. Over the last years the logistics service providers industry was characterized by low profit margins, strong fragmentation and price competition. Nowadays, the market for LSPs is changing, because of an increasing demand for logistics services. To benefit from this situation a more pro-active role of the service providers is required in building stronger relationships with their customers. They should pay more attention on mid and long term possibilities in a collaborative relation, in stead of only be focused on running the daily operation.
DOCUMENT
The transition to an inclusive society through design Inclusive design can play a critical role in shaping a more equitable society. When products and services are intentionally created to be inclusive, they become more accessible to a wide audience, including people who might otherwise struggle to engage with them. In this way, designers become agents of social transformation. The project Active Inclusive Design (AID) addresses this challenge directly. It aims to enhance the capabilities of professional and future designers to create inclusive products and services, both digital and non-digital. In doing so, it supports a responsible and digital society central to the Expertise network Systemic Co-design (ESC) agenda, and is closely connected to all ESC Dynamic Learning Agenda (DLA) themes: Systemic Co-Design (SCD) in me, SCD with others, SCD in reality and SCD in time.
LINK
This book offers a comprehensive, practice-based exploration of Systemic Co-Design (SCD) as it is applied to society’s most complex and urgent transitions. Drawing on collaborative projects from the Expertisenetwork Systemic Co-Design (ESC), it portrays Systemic Co-Design not as a fixed framework but as a reflexive, evolving practice. The chapters present diverse collaborations and inquiries, ranging from inclusive design and digital accessibility to fostering safety cultures and urban co-creation, that illustrate Systemic Co-Design’s capacity to build awareness, trust, and communities, as well as systemic capabilities. The book promotes mutual learning and generates knowledge products such as maps, canvases, cards, games, and embodied interactions that enable meaningful engagement. Key themes that run throughout include continuous reflection, the blending of action research and design experimentation, and collective sense-making across disciplines. The contributions demonstrate how new values, methods, and communities are co-developed with design practitioners, policymakers, educators, and citizens. Together, they demonstrate how Systemic Co-Design achieves practical outcomes while fostering the longterm capacities and cultural shifts necessary for systemic change.
LINK
Our planet’s ecology and society are on a collision course, which manifests due to a contradiction in the assumptions of unlimited material growth fueling the linear economic paradigm. Our closed planetary ecosystem imposes confined amounts of space and a finite extent of resources upon its inhabitants. However, practically all the economic perspectives have been defiantly neglecting these realities, as resources are extracted, used and disposed of reluctantly (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). The circular economy attempts to reconcile the extraction, production and usage of goods and resources with the limited availability of those resources and nature’s regenerative capabilities This perspective entails a shift throughout the supply chain, from material science (e g non-toxic, regenerative biomaterials) to novel logistical systems (e g low-carbon reverse logistics). Because of this, the circular economy is often celebrated for its potential environmental benefits and its usefulness as a blueprint for sustainable development (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Unfortunately, the promise of the circular economy aiming at enhanced sustainability through restorative intent and design (McDonough & Braungart 2010), is often inhibited by institutional barriers posed by the current linear economy of take, make, use and waste (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Underlying those barriers our cultural paradigm celebrates consumerism, exponential growth and financial benefit instead of human values such as diversity, care and trust. Based on a mapping exercise of the circular economy discourse in the Netherlands and an overview of international (academic) literature (Van den Berg 2020) supplemented with collaborative co-creation sessions, visiting events, conferences, giving talks and classes, we have defined a gap leading to the focus of the Professorship. First, we highlight the importance of a process approach in studying the transition from a linear to a circular economy, which is why we use the verb ‘entrepreneuring’ as it indicates the movement we collectively need to make. The majority of work in the field is based on start-ups and only captures snapshots while longitudinal and transition perspectives - especially of larger companies - are missing (Merli et al. 2019; Geissdoerfer et al. 2018; Bocken et al. 2014). We specifically adopt an entrepreneurship-as-practice lens (Thompson, Verduijn & Gartner 2020), which allows us to trace the doings – as opposed to only the sayings - of organizations involved in circular innovation. Such an approach also enables us to study cross-sector and interfirm collaboration, which is crucial to achieve ecosystem circularity (Raworth 2019). As materials flow between actors in a system, traditional views of ‘a value chain’ slowly make way for an ecosystem or value web perspective on ‘organizing business’. We summarize this first theme as ‘entrepreneurship as social change’ broadening dominant views of what economic activity is and who the main actors are supposed to be (Barinaga 2013; Calás, Smircich & Bourne 2009; Steyaert & Hjorth 2008; Nicholls 2008). Second, within the Circular Business Professorship value is a big word in two ways. First of all, we believe that a transition to a circular economy is not just a transition of materials, nor technologies - it is most of all a transition of values We are interested in how people can explore their own agency in transitioning to a circular economy thereby aligning their personal values with the values of the organization and the larger system they are a part of Second, while circularity is a broad concept that can be approached through different lenses, the way in which things are valued and how value is created and extracted lies at the heart of the transition (Mazzucato 2018). If we don’t understand value as collectively crafted it will be very hard to change things, which is why we specifically focus on multiplicity and co-creation in the process of reclaiming value, originating from an ethics of care Third, sustainability efforts are often concerned with optimization of the current – linear – system by means of ecoefficient practices that are a bit ‘less bad’; using ’less resources’, causing ‘less pollution’ and ‘having less negative impact’. In contrast, eco-effective practices are inherently good, departing from the notion of abundance: circular thinking celebrates the abundance of nature’s regenerative capacities as well as the abundance of our imagination to envision new realities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2015). Instead of exploiting natural resources, we should look closely in order to learn how we can build resilient self-sustaining ecosystems like the ones we find in nature. We are in need of rediscovering our profound connection with and appreciation of nature, which requires us to move beyond the cognitive and employ an aesthetic perspective of sustainability This perspective informs our approach to innovating education: aesthetics can support deep sustainability learning (Ivanaj, Poldner & Shrivastava 2014) and contribute to facilitating the circular change makers of the future. The current linear economy has driven our planet’s ecology and society towards a collision course and it is really now or never: if we don’t alter the course towards a circular economy today, then when? When will it become urgent enough for us to take action? Which disaster is needed for us to wake up? We desperately need substitutes for the current neo-liberal paradigm, which underlies our linear society and prevents us from becoming an economy of well-being In Entrepreneuring a regenerative society I propose three research themes – ‘entrepreneurship as social change’, ‘reclaiming value’ and ‘the aesthetics of sustainability’ – as alternative ways of embracing, studying and co-creating such a novel reality. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-poldner-a003473/
MULTIFILE
The development of ‘age-friendly cities’ has become a major area of work in the field of ageing and the built environment. This movement is driven by the observation that cities are home to an ever-increasing ageing population. Over the past decade, a multitude of age-friendly initiatives have been developed with the aim of making physical and social environments more favourable for older people's well-being, health and ability to live in the community. This article explores ten key questions associated with the age-friendly cities and communities' movement, with a particular focus on the built environment. It provides an overview of the history of the age-friendly cities' movement and the underlying models, the aspects of the built environment that are relevant for age-friendly cities, the ways age-friendliness can be evaluated, and the interactions between age-friendly cities initiatives and other strategic agendas such as smart cities. The paper concludes by discussing future perspectives and possible directions for further development of the age-friendly movement. © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jvhoof1980/
MULTIFILE
Abstract. In recent years circular economy has become more important for the development of many places including cities. Traditionally, urban development policies have mainly been aiming to improve the socio-economic wellbeing of neighbourhoods. However, technical and ecologic aspects have their effects too and need to go hand in hand. This paper is based on an urban area experiment in the Dutch city of Utrecht. In order to assess urban area developments, typically rather straight-forward quantitative indicators have been used. However, it has proved more complicated to assess multifaceted developments of the area studied in this paper. With the City Model Canvas a multi-layered model is being used to better assess the impact of the urban development being studied. Key findings include that the project studied resulted in more space for companies from the creative industry and the settlement of local ‘circular’ entrepreneurs and start-ups, although it remains unclear to what extent these benefit from each other’s presence. The increase in business activity resulted in more jobs, but it is again unclear whether this led to more social inclusion. From an environmental point of view the project activities resulted in less raw materials being used, although activities and public events bring nuisance to the surrounding neighbourhoods.
MULTIFILE
This chapter presents the currently not established and identifies design requirements for new systems to address this challenge and provide directions for possible improvement. As a result, this chapter introduces the concept of SamenMarkt®, a participatory system in which multi-agent system technology enables distributed price negotiation, distribution and communication between producers, retailers and consumers.
LINK
